Scientists Claim They've Reversed Aging in Mice (cnn.com) 187
"In molecular biologist David Sinclair's lab at Harvard Medical School, old mice are growing young again," reports CNN:
Using proteins that can turn an adult cell into a stem cell, Sinclair and his team have reset aging cells in mice to earlier versions of themselves. In his team's first breakthrough, published in late 2020, old mice with poor eyesight and damaged retinas could suddenly see again, with vision that at times rivaled their offspring's.
"It's a permanent reset, as far as we can tell, and we think it may be a universal process that could be applied across the body to reset our age," said Sinclair, who has spent the last 20 years studying ways to reverse the ravages of time.
"If we reverse aging, these diseases should not happen. We have the technology today to be able to go into your hundreds without worrying about getting cancer in your 70s, heart disease in your 80s and Alzheimer's in your 90s." Sinclair told an audience at Life Itself, a health and wellness event presented in partnership with CNN.
"This is the world that is coming. It's literally a question of when and for most of us, it's going to happen in our lifetimes," Sinclair told the audience.... Sinclair said his lab has reversed aging in the muscles and brains of mice and is now working on rejuvenating a mouse's entire body.
The article points out that he's building on research by Japan's Dr. Shinya Yamanaka (which in 2007 won a Nobel prize).
But one key caveat: "Studies on whether the genetic intervention that revitalized mice will do the same for people are in early stages, Sinclair said. It will be years before human trials are finished, analyzed and, if safe and successful, scaled to the mass needed for a federal stamp of approval."
"It's a permanent reset, as far as we can tell, and we think it may be a universal process that could be applied across the body to reset our age," said Sinclair, who has spent the last 20 years studying ways to reverse the ravages of time.
"If we reverse aging, these diseases should not happen. We have the technology today to be able to go into your hundreds without worrying about getting cancer in your 70s, heart disease in your 80s and Alzheimer's in your 90s." Sinclair told an audience at Life Itself, a health and wellness event presented in partnership with CNN.
"This is the world that is coming. It's literally a question of when and for most of us, it's going to happen in our lifetimes," Sinclair told the audience.... Sinclair said his lab has reversed aging in the muscles and brains of mice and is now working on rejuvenating a mouse's entire body.
The article points out that he's building on research by Japan's Dr. Shinya Yamanaka (which in 2007 won a Nobel prize).
But one key caveat: "Studies on whether the genetic intervention that revitalized mice will do the same for people are in early stages, Sinclair said. It will be years before human trials are finished, analyzed and, if safe and successful, scaled to the mass needed for a federal stamp of approval."
The irony being (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The irony being (Score:5, Insightful)
the only people who will be able to afford it are the people that human society and the world would be better off without.
Being rich doesn't make you evil, you know....
Re:The irony being (Score:4, Insightful)
Being rich doesn't make you evil, you know....
It actually does. That's literally most of what the original Christians (you know, before the Roman empire took over and created the holy trinity) were trying to say. Of course, they were poor, so they may have been a bit biased... but we even have an axiom about how power corrupts. That didn't come out of nowhere.
You literally can't be a good person if you hold onto the bulk of your money while others are in poverty.
Re:The irony being (Score:5, Informative)
It was actually Jesus who said it:
Jesus told him, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow Me. When the young man heard this, he went away in sorrow, because he had great wealth. Then Jesus said to His disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” (Matthew 19)
(Basically ruling out an awful lot of modern "Christians", LOL!)
Re: (Score:3)
> Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” (Matthew 19)
I don't know this Jesus, but he obviously was no engineer. You just need a bigger needle or smaller camel and problem is solved. No need to sell your stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yes. But if a "Christian" comes with that kind of argument, they obviously are insulting their God's intelligence. I wonder why they think that may be a good idea....
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure the "Christians" will have a mentally dissonant reply to the question of why they're allowed to own iPhones and big SUVs.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Makes me almost wish for their "God" to be real to set them straight. A few centuries of hellfire should do the trick. Unfortunately, there is no indication this is how it works and it seem these assholes will just get a regular reincarnation, same as everybody else.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are popular schools of thought within the broader Christian community that hold that God grants wealth to his servants so that they can better serve. They understand wealth as basically a responsibility that God has imposed upon them to further the good of others. They find a few versus in the Bible that suggest such things (Jesus saying "feed my sheep," some analogy about servants given money to care for and the ones that invest it and get a return are deemed the good servants, and other verses pro
Re:The irony being (Score:5, Interesting)
No, there's no need to be an engineer to make the camel pass the eye of the needle. Apparently, he did a good analogy, but it got lost with a wrong translation.
The ancient greek word for mooring rope [wiktionary.org] is extremely similar to the ancient greek word for camel [wiktionary.org]. Both words are the same except for a different type of "i" vowel, which in the second case is similar to our "n". Please check the links to see the similarity, because Slashdot does not yet allow you use UTF.
"It is easier for a mooring rope to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" makes perfect sense to indicate something extremely difficult or completely impossible, without having to guess why would a camel need to pass through the eye of a needle.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, there's no need to be an engineer to make the camel pass the eye of the needle. Apparently, he did a good analogy, but it got lost with a wrong translation.
The ancient greek word for mooring rope [wiktionary.org] is extremely similar to the ancient greek word for camel [wiktionary.org]. Both words are the same except for a different type of "i" vowel, which in the second case is similar to our "n". Please check the links to see the similarity, because Slashdot does not yet allow you use UTF.
"It is easier for a mooring rope to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" makes perfect sense to indicate something extremely difficult or completely impossible, without having to guess why would a camel need to pass through the eye of a needle.
There's other explanations for the quote that are maybe a little more believable than people presumably fluent in both those languages mixing up the words for camel and rope.
'http://www.best-travel-deals-tips.com/jerusalem-eye-of-the-needle-gate.html' (broke the link since as a hyperlink it looked like an affiliate shill link haha)
There's a link to one explanation I heard a long time ago that I thought was interesting. The eye of the needle was the name given to a small opening in a defensive wall, designe
Re: (Score:2)
Which I guess is the point. It's not outright impossible for "a rich man to enter the kingdom of God". It's just really, really difficult - to the point that it's not going to happen 99.99% of the time.
Re: (Score:2)
It was actually Jesus who said it:
Jesus told him, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow Me. When the young man heard this, he went away in sorrow, because he had great wealth. Then Jesus said to His disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” (Matthew 19)
(Basically ruling out an awful lot of modern "Christians", LOL!)
You mean like those "Christians" that already fail at really simple and clearly phrased requirements such as "Thou shalt not kill"? Yeah, I wonder what they think that God of theirs that made this really simple list of things to follow (if you do not understand the more complex stuff) will/would make of that.
Well, I am an atheist. I go by the golden rule, unless I have very good non-selfish reasons not to. But if you claim to follow some religion (and often also rub that in other people's faces as if you ar
Re: (Score:3)
You mean like those "Christians" that already fail at really simple and clearly phrased requirements such as "Thou shalt not kill"?
When I wen to church they got around that one by claiming it was a mis-translation and what it really meant to say was "Thou shalt not murder".
(and I'm not sure what happened to the "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" system of justice laid out in the Bible)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like those "Christians" that already fail at really simple and clearly phrased requirements such as "Thou shalt not kill"?
When I wen to church they got around that one by claiming it was a mis-translation and what it really meant to say was "Thou shalt not murder".
(and I'm not sure what happened to the "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" system of justice laid out in the Bible)
Yes, I have seen that one. Basically it works defining some other people as "not people" and then it is perfectly fine to kill them. Also clearly says those at the top of such a form of organized evil do not actually believe in the "God" whose existence they preach to others, because otherwise they would be setting themselves up for an eternity in Hell and they clearly would not do that.
Re: (Score:3)
Murder and self defense are mutually exclusive.
They are. And that is why the lie of translating it as "murder" did come into being. Because the instruction is "Thou shalt not kill", not "Thou shalt not kill, except when you feel like it" or something. It is a direct instruction to be pacifist and there is zero room for interpretation. And to expose the lie a bit more: The murderous fake "Christians" are talking about _indirect_ self defense here, i.e. killing people preventatively that may in some more-or-less contrived or constructed scenario give them
Re: (Score:2)
He said that to a particular individual. It's other people who generalized it. (If, of course, he really existed and really did say something translatable as that.)
This doesn't make the generalization either correct or incorrect. But it makes the argument invalid. (Also: argument from authority)
Re: (Score:2)
Power corrupts (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, money is power.
It's weird that 99% of us would agree with both sentiments but if you start talking about taking away enough of that money that can no longer be wielded as power that's where things break down.
I mean, I think only about 20% of us wanted to install a dictator for life. Still too high, but the other 80% understand that handing that much power to one man is a problem. Yet we don't blink at billionaires.
I blame growing up with stories of the 'billionaire philanthropist' trope in comics and Sci-Fi. e.g. Batman, Tony Stark, bits of Isaac Asimov's work, etc, etc. Too much hero worship.
Re:Power corrupts (Score:4, Insightful)
There are no billionaire pilhantropists in real life. All of the existing billionaires that made the money themselves have done excessive damage and untold evil to get there and often continue to do so. Even if they were to spend all that money to make up for it, they would never be able to. There are some that at least try to appear somewhat philantrophical, but a closer look easily finds the charade that is going on there. These people universally confuse honor (what you know about yourself and what you have actually done) and reputation (what others think who you are) and always think that fixing your reputation would somehow magically remove all those massive stains on their honor. It does not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Lying PoS and one of the worst negative contributors to the IT revolution, ever.
Re: (Score:3)
Sustainability factors in to that moral calculus, I think.
If you have a million dollars and you donate it all to some noble charities that help the poor, that is a good deed, but it is also one-and-done. If you instead invest that million bucks into some bond-heavy mutual funds, you can get a steady income of roughly 50,000 a year (before taxes), which could then be used to fund charitable efforts on a continuing basis. A steady stream of money is more helpful, even if it is lower, because you can use tha
Re: (Score:2)
So, while I agree that "hoarding wealth" contributes to poverty and is evil, I don't agree that "being rich" is automatically the same thing as "hoarding wealth."
It depends partly on what you describe as rich, and partly on what percentage of someone's income they spend on what. But for some of these guys near the top of the pyramid, there's no question what they are doing.
Re: (Score:2)
There is something else I forgot to mention....
If you are rich, you are probably spending money and paying taxes. Spending money delivers that money into the hands of the working class, so that is a good thing. The fact that you get something in return for the money you spend doesn't make it evil. Similarly, most governments, including the US federal government and state governments, spend tax money on efforts that would otherwise be covered by charities. So, by paying your taxes, you are giving money t
Re: (Score:2)
If you are rich, you are probably spending money and paying taxes.
The first thing is limited, the second thing does not happen in actual reality.
Re: (Score:2)
we have an important lesson we can take from the UBI studies over the past few decades. The best way to help the poor is giving them cash. I know conservatives clutch their pearls at the thought of a poor person having cash but the actual measured data from experience on the ground shows that poor people are smart about spending money and don't spend it on things like drugs/alcohol etc. etc. They spend on the child
Re: (Score:2)
You misinterpreted the article you quoted. The title of that article IS misleading, so I can't blame you. But the conclusion of the article, stated once at the beginning and once at the end, is "the best advice is to invest in an index fund benchmarked to the overall stock market." What the author was saying wasn't that profiting from the market is a matter of luck, but rather that trying to beat the market is a matter of luck. And I agree whole-heartedly. For any individual investor, trying to consist
Re: (Score:2)
I was going to give you a bunch of examples of how luck plays such determent role in our lives but I came up with very simple rule of thumb. If a course of action does not end up with a predictable deterministic result then system is most likely random and the outcome is chosen by luck. There is no better proof of this than starting with who you were born to and what opportunities that presented to you.
in the example of investing, the value of the share is at a base de
Re: (Score:2)
That article had an awful lot of words in it, so I just skimmed it, and I didn't see a compelling argument against investing in the stock market. Though I wonder if we are using the word "luck" in a slightly different sense.
I was damn lucky to be born to an American family that could afford to buy me a good education, and with genetics that naturally made me good at software development. Most people in the world are born to poverty, so the odds of being born in my circumstances are against. I didn't "ear
Re: (Score:2)
You literally can't be a good person if you hold onto the bulk of your money while others are in poverty.
And that is the very core of it. For every million you have that you do not actually need, some family is in poverty and probably has loved ones dying a lot earlier than needed. For every billion somebody owns, there is probably a war that was caused by this. Now, I am not advocating living poor, but there is a limit to when the amount of possesions somebody has becomes immoral and hugely problematic. Incidentally, there is also another problem: Rich people are not happier. In fact, there is a relatively lo
Re: The irony being (Score:2)
You forgot to mention disease, like quarantining alone in a yacht with hundreds of empty rooms while poor donâ(TM)t even have safe spaces and are thus spreading a deadly illness:
https://god.dailydot.com/david... [dailydot.com]
Re: (Score:2)
These days money and power are distinct things.
This is capitalism, and capital controls the means of production. That means ultimately that they are very closely related things.
Powerful people have money as an artifact of the power they have, the power does not derive from money itself.
Money has power all its own in any capitalism. It's not unlimited, but neither is any other kind of power.
Re: (Score:2)
> Being rich doesn't make you evil, you know....
According to scientific studies, it does.
https://greatergood.berkeley.e... [berkeley.edu]
https://www.marketwatch.com/st... [marketwatch.com]
https://healthland.time.com/20... [time.com]
Re: (Score:2)
All those studies seem to point to at best is that people who focus much of their attention on wealth are more likely to ""be evil".
It is possible to become rich and still develop a mindset that is not focused on the acquisition of more wealth. I've even met a few,
Re: (Score:2)
It is possible to become rich and still develop a mindset that is not focused on the acquisition of more wealth. I've even met a few,
I highly doubt that. At the very least they will be "uncaring evil" (letting evil happen when you could have prevented it). In some ways that is even worse.
Re: (Score:2)
the only people who will be able to afford it are the people that human society and the world would be better off without.
Being rich doesn't make you evil, you know....
In the cases were people have made themselves rich, there is a pretty solid correlation. As being rich always means taking away from others and limiting generally available wealth, that is in no way a surprise.
Re: (Score:2)
This is _very_ _much_ how it works. There are some exceptions, but there is absolutely no way to get really rich using these exceptions.
Re:The irony being (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really. Plenty of evil acts are done by people of little to no means.
Re: (Score:2)
You're thinking about the stupid/evil.
The smart/evil... they can get very rich indeed.
Re:The irony being (Score:4, Insightful)
Not really. Plenty of evil acts are done by people of little to no means.
Yes. But they never manage to scale it up anywhere near to the level rich people can and do and did.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent Funny and Insightful, but I'm afraid the story mostly keyed this memory:
"He was arrested for transporting gulls across a staid lion for immortal porpoises."
Trust me. You don't want to know the rest of it. But if you don't trust me, then you deserve what websearch will give you...
Re: (Score:2)
A google search for your quote brings up this post and nothing else.
Re: (Score:2)
He had an ironic typo. It's immoral, not immortal, porpoises.
Re: (Score:2)
I've heard it both ways, but PDQ Bach used "immoral porpoises"
Re: (Score:2)
Websearch, not the internal search on Slashdot. I'm not surprised Slashdot's own weak search would miss it.
With regards to the other comments about "immortal" versus "immoral", the version I saw definitely involved immortality research to raise the pun score to five switched words.
Re: (Score:2)
Websearch, not the internal search on Slashdot.
Again, it was a Google search.
With regards to the other comments about "immortal" versus "immoral", the version I saw definitely involved immortality research to raise the pun score to five switched words.
Google disagrees. Replacing "immortal" with "immoral", however, brings up the "joke".
Re: The irony being (Score:2)
The love of money is the root of all evil.
To get it, some people will do terrible things to themselves and others.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm very skeptical about this (how do they even test mice eyesight, with little charts of cheese?) and claiming it doesn't make it so, but ... let's all pray that it's too late for Donald Trump by the time it's available.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm very skeptical about this (how do they even test mice eyesight, with little charts of cheese?
I'm envisioning a Snellen chart with all cats of different sizes.
Re: (Score:2)
the only people who will be able to afford it are the people that human society and the world would be better off without.
Because it's rich people who shoot up elementary schools and push subway passengers off platforms and do carjackings and mall store mob loots. Those are the people I wouldn't mind seeing stuck with limited lifetimes.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. And if it ever goes mainstream, it will need to be very restricted. For example, you can either have kids or this treatment, but not both.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's cute you think this hasn't already happened...
https://external-content.duckd... [duckduckgo.com]
Is that how Mickeys copyright (Score:5, Funny)
never expires throughout the ages?
Ageless society (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, the increased use of antibiotics will create superbugs that eventually kill us anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
No they don't (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree to that. Lets hope this "breakthrough" is not what it appears to be. Like all those before that claimed similar things.
Re: (Score:2)
Should I be excited about this? I would, but.... (Score:5, Interesting)
And even if this ever becomes ubiquitous, people won't be taking out mortgages on homes, they'll instead be taking out mortgages to extend their own lives which will take the rest of their lives to pay off.
I fully expect that this technology, if it ever gets applied to humans at all, is going to ultimately lead to the creation a whole new classification of slavery. We just won't call it by that, of course.
Re: (Score:3)
Life extension is a tempting target for monopolists. You've heard of expensive patented lifesaving medicines; this is the ultimate lifesaving medicine. The patent will make a few people very rich.
Who are those people? Are they the taxpayers who contributed to the research? Ha ha, when has that ever happened? Will Harvard reap millions? Probably, but that's chickenfeed. So who? Simply read the names connected with the 'conflict of interest' list in the Pubmed link. The researchers are all affiliated with cor
Re: (Score:2)
Patents expire.
Sure maybe you'll have to go to the monopoly for the latest "extreme edition, now with 75% more Vitalix!" of rejuvenation treatments - but the ones you got last time worked just fine and are now available in generic versions. The only questions are - are there fat enough profit margins to justify competition? And, is there so much consolidation and collusion in the pharmaceutical industry that they still won't do it? In which case maybe we should either break up some pharmaceutical compani
Why hasn't this happened at naturally (Score:3)
Great news and kudos to the scientists...but I'm wondering why this has (apparently) never happened as part of natural evolution. I guess there could have been immortal (to dying of old age) dinosaurs but they just got wiped by the big rock coming in or something.
But still, why hasn't this (apparently) happened naturally, ever? I mean, there are some very long-lived species (like turtles) and some thousands-year old plants and the like, but even they are not immortal. Evolutionary pressures and all that, but still having a lifespan that can last for geological epochs should have yielded *some* advantage...
Or is this a case of science effectively bypassing some mechanisms (such as in the case of mRNA vaccines, where the encoding of synthetic replacement instead of 'U' bypasses immune systems and does not really exist in nature? (see https://berthub.eu/articles/po... [berthub.eu] )
Re: (Score:2)
Trees are far less likely to be seen dying of old ages because many can grow a lot longer. A tree isn't truly "old" until it can't grow anymore.
But for animals? If we over-reproduce and our ancestors don't die fast enough, we will be starving or thirsting sooner or later. Some human society may reduce the reproductive rate before that happens, but I still think most people would like a society full of youngsters more than a society full of elderly. Old people, even if not declined by aging, are harder to
Re: (Score:2)
It kind of has - naked mole rats for example don't seem to really age.
There's a few factors that probably contribute to it not being more common:
- Regardless of individual aging speed, every individual has an expected lifespan before they get killed by predators, disease, accident, etc. - very few animals survive much past middle age in the wild (as evidenced by the fact that lifespans in labs, zoos, etc. tend to be almost twice as long).
- Any life-extending mutation that extends an individuals "good years"
Re: (Score:2)
There are some bacteria. that are 100 millions of years old. But from evolution perspective, you don't want to live long, you want to breed fast so evolution happens faster than environmental changes. There is also disadvantage for the species to live long. If dominant males live long, they produce more offspring, but that slows down the evolution of the species as you just provide the same genes over and over again. They also usually consume the same food supplies so there is actually evolutionary advantag
Re: (Score:2)
The unit of evolution is the gene, not the individual. Individuals that don't age also don't change. They get outcompeted.
Re: (Score:2)
Many plants are nearly immortal. Naked mole rats. Some jellyfish. Lobsters.
Why the negativity (Score:5, Insightful)
Death may be the "great equalizer" but so is immortality - infinite chances to try again, to do all the things you didn't have time to do.
Even if its initially only available to a very few, once the technology exists, likely it will become more cost effective, the way other technologies have. Think of the number of people in poor countries with cell phones.
That said, I have no opinion on the likelihood of this particular direction of research proving effective, I have no knowledge of this field
Re: (Score:2)
Too much fictional media consumption and comparing everything to movies and videogames.
There are still plenty of ways to die that are not from old age. Car crashes, medical malpractice, drug abuse...
And if someone is a big enough cunt, maybe people decide to do something about them.
Re:Why the negativity (Score:4, Funny)
It seems that whenever anti aging / immortality is discussed, people try to find some reason to believe its "bad". Why is that?
Because this is Slashdot. Every gift horse needs a deep periodontal scraping followed by root canals and then a mouthful of implants.
Re: Why the negativity (Score:2)
I read another article speculating that aging DOES have an indirect long-term evolutionary survival advantage: it reduces your likelihood of dying from cancer in late middle age.
Apparently, stem cells are a mixed bag... they provide the foundation of resiliency & healing, but can also easily screw up & become cancer. Around middle age, they become more of a liability, and reducing their activity a little reduces cancer risk by a lot... with age-related degeneration as an unfortunate side effect.
It w
Re: (Score:3)
>Death may be the "great equalizer" but so is immortality - infinite chances to try again, to do all the things you didn't have time to do.
In a more egalitarian society perhaps. But in the modern societies we've built so far, wealth and power flow consistently uphill, and pretty much the only thing that diffuses the really large concentrations are when the focus dies. Then their personal influence and power dissolves, while their estate generally gets divvied up. Get rid of death, and those at the top
Re: (Score:3)
- Perspective of overpopulation which will need massive cuts in the area of personal freedom to keep under control.
- Despots being able to maintain control forever.
- Fear of reaching your full potential at some point then being stuck with boredom for eternity.
- From a religious perspective, you are throwing a wrench into gods plan and you are barring yourself from the afterlife.
- Fear that, if for some reason you'd want death after all, you can't have it because you can't stop your cells from reforming.
Re: Why the negativity (Score:2)
Good point. If it exists, it will be huge. Look at the claim that the leading cause of childhood deaths is gun violence. I thought this was BS bc gun deaths dwarf all deaths in US, 120 a day for guns in US vs 9,300 for other things mostly disease. But it turns out young people are so immune to basically every disease that the vast majority of child deaths are violent, guns and cars. That probably means youth is the cure for basically every disease. How for instance would you maintain obesity with that young
Re: (Score:2)
The Slashdot crowd is pretty old now. Mostly coasting down the other side. I guess they don't want to think there's another hill up ahead?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and sort of. We're certainly the worst with it by a long shot. We'll approve a 98% effective device that only 50% will ever be able to afford and throw out an 80% effective device that over 90% could afford for the same thing because it is "ineffective". The simple math is the 98% effective device is actually 49% effective because it is ineffective for the 50% who can't afford it, and the 80% effective device is actually 72% effective because only 10% couldn't afford it (probably because they would have
Re: Why the negativity (Score:2)
Medical care is a universal right in the first world.
Re: (Score:3)
I do agree that institutions could become fossilized, but without limited lifespans, maybe people in power would decide to change their lives over time. The CEO ofa multi-national might decide to become a musician, or mountain guide.
I think
I'm listening (Score:3)
I really want to do puberty all over again.
Elysium here we come (Score:3)
I'm guessing the movie Elysium [wikipedia.org] can give us a preview of how this will turn out for the wealthy and masses -- probably will walled gardens for the wealthy instead of a space station.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm thinking of In Time (2011), where people have to buy life every week: Just breathing, becomes wealth. Poor people have to take whatever job, at whatever price, (and not get mugged) just to stay alive, while rich people can stay young for decades.
At the moment, people are expected to work until they're 70: With unending life, the middle class will be working forever. Which creates another problem: We don't have enough jobs now and we're building technology so people don't retire or die. The resul
Re: (Score:2)
I'm thinking of In Time (2011), ...
I thought of that too, just after I pressed Submit. :-)
I imagine the benefits and desirability of immortality directly corresponding to the amount of one's wealth.
Certainly, there's a shortage of desirable housing -- affordable or not.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why capitalism (plus, most forms of socialism) is sustainable and why the rich can mis-label themselves as 'job creators'.
First, they have to face the truth that not wearing clothes, or casual sex, or even masturbating, stop being 'private' experiences. Unfortunately, the wealthy want to control our sex lives, so we must hide reality when it does not match their puritanical demands.
While dormitory-style child-rearing has been theorized, there's no record of it working, or, of it being used. Dorm
Harvard has licensed the technology to (Score:5, Interesting)
Life but no one would want. (Score:2)
If true, it would create so much evil and suffering across the World as everyone would want the treatment.
Does no one understand this?
There was a book... (Score:3)
I wonder who remembers Flowers for Algernon
Third wish granted (Score:2)
Finally! (Score:2)
The NY mouse will again be able to pull a full family-size pizza down the stairs instead of just a slice.
Links to the Sinclair teams published research ... (Score:5, Informative)
All of the Sinclair team's published research [harvard.edu] ...
this seems overly complicated compared to... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"Just increases your chances of getting run over by a bus or pushed out a window"
We'll push you out long before you'll get the procedure.